Up in smoke: How easily Donald Trump and Republicans could set fire to the system of norms that hold our government together

By Michael Cohen

|NEW YORK DAILY NEWS|

Oct 08, 2016 | 5:00 AM

No sense of limits (JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

To fully understand and appreciate the threat that Donald Trump represents to American democracy, consider the impeachment of President Richard Nixon — one of the best examples of American constitutional democracy at work, during one of this nation's darkest moments.

The congressional act of impeaching a President is the ultimate and perhaps only real safeguard against a law-breaking, authoritarian-minded commander in chief. But while the act of impeachment is an institutional prerogative of Congress, it's one that relies explicitly on the willingness of one group of political leaders to exercise political will and of a President prepared to abide by their decisions.

Advertisement

In July 1974, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Nixon must turn over recordings of his Oval Office conversations to the Watergate special prosecutor — recordings that contained evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Nixon and his aides.

But imagine for a moment if Nixon had refused to comply. The judiciary branch has no enforcement capacity and could not force Nixon to relinquish the tapes.

Congress, which had already begun impeachment proceedings, could have used Nixon's refusal to abide by a judicial order as further grounds for impeachment. And let's say that then, the House of Representatives impeached him and the Senate convicted him.

Nixon could have refused to accept Congress' actions and to relinquish office. This would have created a full-fledged constitutional crisis.

That Nixon did abide by the Supreme Court, that he did not seek to fight impeachment and instead resigned his office, is a tribute to the norms, customs, tradition and unwritten but well-understood rules that guide the actions of political leaders. Indeed, the proper functioning of democracy relies as much on adherence to these norms as it does the institutions that define America's democratic system of government.

This is why Donald Trump is such a grave threat to the American system. Not only does his behavior not conform to these political norms, but because he doesn't have any real grounding in history or any practical experience in government or politics, he doesn't appear to understand why the norms exist or what purpose they serve.

But what makes the possibility of a President Trump even more concerning is that he helms a political party that- for the past decade and a half — has shown similar disrespect for these political traditions. America's governing institutions are simply not strong enough on their own to protect democracy from a party and President like this.

To be sure, political norms are a bit of a moving target. These are not laws or binding regulations, but rather customs of behavior to which political elites and politicians have tacitly agreed to conform. They can be hard to define, are often better understood implicitly rather than explicitly and are constantly evolving, often to reflect changing societal and cultural mores.

But with candidate Trump, these customs — at least in the context of a presidential campaign (which is all we have to judge him by, since he has never served in public office) — have been thrown by the wayside.

For example, presidential candidates have, for 40 years, turned over their tax returns in order to make clear to voters that they have no financial conflicts of interest in seeking the presidency. They have provided detailed medical information to reassure voters that they are physically fit to be President. They don't ban news outlets from events because they dislike their reporting.

Advertisement

There are no laws requiring that candidates take these steps. They just do it because, well, that's what presidential candidates do.

Trump, of course, has failed to adhere to these customs.

Then there are more subjective norms. It has long been considered inappropriate to engage in rank bigotry and racism or to use racial slurs like "Pocahontas" or crude insults like "Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted" or "Crooked Hillary."

Accusing the Federal Reserve — without evidence — of basing its decisions on political considerations, musing about violent attacks against one's political opponent, questioning the physical and mental health of one's opponent, or bragging about one's penis size are all actions that generally fall outside most long-standing campaign norms.

Related Gallery

New York Daily News front pages on the presidential election

Certainly, there are norms against lying repeatedly and consistently without shame — even after statements have been proven false. Trump doesn't bother to change what he says, even after he's caught flatly abusing the truth. He just repeats the lie — over and over again.

Indeed, as the New York Times pointed out last month, what is "so worrisome to many observers of Mr. Trump's rise" is that it could portend "a political future in which candidates pay no penalty for unabashedly telling untruths, disregarding the public's right to know and lobbing racially charged accusations."

The norm against political lying has been steadily eroding for years. Back in 2008, the McCain campaign regularly lodged political attacks against Barack Obama that were provably untrue.

Mitt Romney went even further in 2012, accusing Obama of passing Obamacare with full knowledge that it "would slow down the economic recovery in this country," and telling voters that taxes had gone up during his presidency when they'd actually gone down.

But Trump has taken lying to a whole new level. It goes to show how political lying — and simply making up accusations against one's opponent, like the false charge that Hillary Clinton started birtherism or the dishonest claim that she wants to repeal the Second Amendment — have become normalized.

If Trump is so willing to violate basic norms on the campaign trail, what might he do in office, with a massive staff at his disposal and all the credibility and executive authority that comes with being what we sometimes call Leader of the Free World?

Presidents generally don't abrogate agreements reached by their predecessors. But Trump's campaign has suggested he would scrap the Iran nuclear deal, turn his back on the Paris climate treaty and perhaps start multiple trade wars with U.S. trading partners.

He's said that the U.S. would not necessarily defend NATO countries in Eastern Europe if they came under Russian attack — even though the U.S. is duty-bound, because of treaty obligation, to defend them.

There is nothing that could force a President to defend these countries or preempt a demand, such as Trump makes, for further tribute from them in order to ensure they continue to receive American security protections. As President and commander in chief, he could simply refuse to activate the U.S. military.

The same indifference could be replicated on the Korean peninsula and in the Far East, as well as in the Middle East.

Trump has said he'll bring back torture and even target the families of terrorists — acts that would violate both domestic and international law.

Advertisement

When challenged on what would happen when members of the military refused to carry out his illegal orders, as is their legal responsibility, Trump replied: "They're not gonna refuse. Believe me."

But what makes these and other threats from Trump even more disturbing is that within the Republican Party, he is not necessarily an outlier. Indeed, while his refusal to abide by political norms in the 2016 campaign is certainly extreme, it's consistent with Republican behavior dating back more than a decade.

Since Obama took office in 2009, the GOP has expanded the use of the filibuster in the Senate to oppose pretty much any initiative he and Senate Democrats have put forward. As Norm Ornstein points out, in the Obama years, "Republican filibusters or threats of filibuster escalated in ways the Senate had never seen before" and have become a "pure tactic of obstruction, trying to use up as much of the Senate's most precious commodity — time — as possible to screw up the majority's agenda."

On repeated occasions, Republicans have used the debt limit and the threat of government shutdowns as tools to extract concessions out of the White House. Just this year, they refused to even hold hearings for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

In this Aug. 9, 1974, file photo, Richard Nixon says goodbye to members of his staff outside the White House in Washington as he boards a helicopter for Andrews Air Force Base after resigning the presidency in Washington. (Anonymous/AP)

None of these actions are illegal, and there is no tool to force Senate Republicans to consider Garland's nomination, or not use the debt limit as a bargaining chip, or only use the filibuster in selective situations. There's just tradition and custom. When those are eroded, political institutions that rely on compromise become paralyzed, which is precisely what's happened over the past eight years.

Indeed, one can easily imagine that if Hillary Clinton is elected President and Republicans control the Senate, they will simply choose to never hold hearings on her Supreme Court nominee. After all, since Republicans have paid almost no political price for the norm-violating actions, there's no impediment on them further upping the ante.

Now imagine what a GOP-controlled Congress might do with a Republican, like Trump, in the White House. During the Bush years, the White House took an expansive view of executive power that included secretly reinstating the use of torture and engaging in warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

Bush's Department of Justice fired eight U.S. attorneys for failing to act more aggressively in prosecuting voter fraud and ignored judicial decisions with which it didn't agree. They too paid no price for these actions and, with the help of Republicans in Congress, received little scrutiny for this behavior.

If Trump wins in November, it is all but certain that would also mean Republicans will also maintain control of the House and Senate. But Republicans wouldn't need to pass laws or repeal them to erode our constitutional protections and democratic institutions. Rather, they could simply do nothing.

What if President Trump followed through on his campaign promise to investigate Amazon because of his annoyance with reporting done by the Washington Post, both of which are owned by Jeff Bezos? Is there any reason to believe that Congress would hold him to account?

What if he continues to criticize federal judges whose decisions he disagrees with, or follows through on his decision to fire generals he doesn't like?

What if he issues an executive order putting in place his Muslim ban or ramping up deportations of undocumented immigrants?

What if these decisions were challenged and even overturned in court but President Trump refused to abide by the decisions?

Based on his campaign presidency so far, why wouldn't we expect Trump to do these things? Again, who would stop him?

It's possible that the same Republicans who have overwhelmingly endorsed Trump's White House bid — even while harshly critical of him — would suddenly summon up the courage to scrutinize or even impeach a Republican President.

But anyone relying on that is likely hoping against hope.

By expanding the boundaries of what is considered acceptable and normalizing once frowned-upon behavior, Trump would put at risk the fundamental customs and traditions that, every bit as much as the words of the Constitution themselves, allow American democracy to function.

It would fundamentally widen presidential power in ways that would be incredibly difficult to roll back.

But the even more disconcerting possibility is that down the road, another politician who is savvier, less thin-skinned and more appealing but just as authoritarian-minded as Trump could win the presidency. If you think that America's governing institutions could protect against such a leader taking power and eroding our democracy, think again.

Cohen is author of "American Maelstrom: The 1968 Election and the Politics of Division."